The Top Ten Happenings in Mopologetics 2008

[_Ray A]

I've been absolutely forthright and on the record in condemning all Mormon terrorist groups. Whenever militant Mormons have decapitated somebody, or hijacked an airliner, or blown up a building, I've spoken out.

I get the cynicism, Dan. But you were the one who said that if Mormonism wasn't true, it would be "unutterably sad".

For some it has been "unutterably sad".

It hasn't been for me, because I never grew up in the Church.

It really doesn't matter what BYU pays you for "officially". You know that they expect you to defend the Church, and they will finance 200 tours of Islam so you can get a word in about Mormonism. To say that you're doing this of your own accord, for Islamic studies, is to deny that BYU and the Church see a great stake in this. And Rachel Kohn didn't just interview you about Islam. She's fascinates about you as a Mormon.

So you're killing two birds with one stone. And I think the delivering the Mormon message is far more important to you than any speech you ever gave on Islam. That has always been a stepping stone, never a purely objective scholarly study. If I was real cynical, I'd say your ultimate objective is to prove Mormonism true. You don't study Islam objectively and as a socio-religious phenomenon, you study it to compare it, also, with the "truth of Mormonism". And, of course, Mormonism trumps all. Because, simply, you don't apply the same objective and critical assessments to Mormonism, that you do to Islam. If you did this, you might be accused of being in apostasy.

You are prepared to assign myth to Mohammad, but you're not prepared to assign that to Joseph Smith. Because he stands outside any such testing and criticism, as far as you are concerned. You will never entertain the idea that Joseph Smith could have manufactured all this, just like no Muslim could manufacture the idea that Muhammed created the Qur'an.

[_Gadianton]

For the record the "mod scottie" stamp in my post was my doing, Kim. I was just trying to help Bob along with his pursuit to mimick mod edits, a pursuit that is becoming slightly more technical.

[_Trevor]

I care that your false accusations not go uncontradicted.

Dan, your're trying to escape this issue is like the politician who says he only earns so much per year. Perks not included. Don't tell me BYU doesn't have a "dual mission" in regard to you.

I only have two legs to pull, by the way.

From where I sit, this sums up the situation quite nicely. On the one hand, Dr. Peterson understandably comes forward to reject the erroneous claims of Scratch. After all, Scratch is stretching here, and the point seems to be to make Daniel and the LDS Church look as bad as possible. An innocent fact is used to paint a sinister picture, when the truth is, more often than not, innocent.

in my opinion, what Scratch is doing needs to be distinguished from what Ray A and I are saying (at least, what I see Ray saying in the above post). Speaking for myself, I do not see anything sinister in the Church facilitating its own apologetics. It can do so as creatively as it wants, so long as it remains legal and aboveboard. I see no evidence that it has not remained so. Unfortunately, this is not good enough for many critics and some members of the Church.

I simply agree with Ray A that, whether "officially" or not, apologetics is part of Daniel's career working for the LDS Church--all technicalities and legalities aside. I have come to expect that Daniel will say that I am simply wrong, and that I do not understand the terms of his employment, and that is fine. Of course I have not seen his contract, but, as Ray A points out very nicely, that is really beside the point. It is even more beside the point in the case of those who have chosen to consecrate their lives and their careers to the Kingdom of God.

Apples and oranges? I don't think so. If you understood my point, you would see that it was not "apples and oranges" at all. The Church does a fine job of separating out its different species of donations so that tithing funds are not used in a way that could be negatively scrutinized. But, as has been pointed out correctly so many times before, moneys are fungible. The Church simply is actively facilitating its apologetics, and DCP (member of the executive council of the NMI) is one of the tools it uses to get the job done.

But let me reiterate--I don't consider any of this to be a big deal. What does bother me is the suggestion that my reasons and conclusions carry anything of the mechanics or intent of Scratch's quest to "sinisterize" Mormon apologetics and the LDS Church. No, Daniel, I have not bought into Scratch's overall thesis, your suggestions to the contrary notwithstanding.

[_Gadianton]

As a general comment, this thread has really taken off! It will likely prove to be the most successful thread of this holiday season and it's an exciting time for all of us on MDB. I'm personally really starting to get the spirit of Christmas now.

[_Tom]

Honorable mentions for top happenings:

1. Dr. Peterson's "Humble Apologetics" FAIR Conference paper

2. Publication of Dr. John Gee's Joseph Smith Papyri paper

Dr. Gee:

It is also worth knowing that for nearly one hundred years it has been standard operating procedure to dig for dirt on the background of anyone who enters the debate.

Dr. Gee:

If you do address the issue in print, you need to know that the two sides in the dispute will never leave you alone. It is a life sentence with no possibility of parole....Before you rush into print, you might want to ask yourself: "Do I want to spend the rest of my one moment in annihilation's waste by dealing with this?"

3. John A. Tvedtnes, who has had ten books and more than 300 articles published, joins SHIELDS as an associate.

[_Daniel Peterson]

It really doesn't matter what BYU pays you for "officially". You know that they expect you to defend the Church

I wasn't hired to defend the Church, and, if I quit doing apologetics, my salary would be entirely unaffected. By contrast, if I were to cease teaching and writing about Islam and editing Islamic texts, I would be fired.

It's that simple.

And Rachel Kohn didn't just interview you about Islam. She's fascinates about you as a Mormon.

I don't doubt that for a moment, but it isn't relevant.

Incidentally, she was in Utah about a month ago, and she interviewed me yet again during her visit (along with three others). I have no idea when that interview will be broadcast. Perhaps it already has been.

So you're killing two birds with one stone. And I think the delivering the Mormon message is far more important to you than any speech you ever gave on Islam. That has always been a stepping stone, never a purely objective scholarly study. If I was real cynical, I'd say your ultimate objective is to prove Mormonism true. You don't study Islam objectively and as a socio-religious phenomenon, you study it to compare it, also, with the "truth of Mormonism". And, of course, Mormonism trumps all. Because, simply, you don't apply the same objective and critical assessments to Mormonism, that you do to Islam. If you did this, you might be accused of being in apostasy.

Well, Ray, you're certainly welcome to your mind-reading and your speculations. I don't know that you're familiar to any degree with my work on Islam, so I'm not quite sure what basis you have to reach the judgment you've now reached. On this board, though, I don't get the impression that evidence matters all that much.

You are prepared to assign myth to Mohammad

I am? Have you read my biography of Muhammad?

but you're not prepared to assign that to Joseph Smith. Because he stands outside any such testing and criticism, as far as you are concerned. You will never entertain the idea that Joseph Smith could have manufactured all this, just like no Muslim could manufacture the idea that Muhammed created the Qur'an.

You really don't understand me, Ray.

[_Ray A]

Incidentally, she was in Utah about a month ago, and she interviewed me yet again during her visit (along with three others). I have no idea when that interview will be broadcast. Perhaps it already has been.

I read about that on MAD. I haven't seen the interview yet. Rachael probably won't remember me, but I corresponded with her on Mormonism years ago, from a critical perspective. I don't think she's into criticism, and she strikes me as someone interested in the positives of religion. I doubt she'll ask you any really difficult questions, and the Australian media on the whole are woefully lacking in any in-depth critical understanding of Mormonism.

Well, Ray, you're certainly welcome to your mind-reading and your speculations. I don't know that you're familiar to any degree with my work on Islam, so I'm not quite sure what basis you have to reach the judgment you've now reached. On this board, though, I don't get the impression that evidence matters all that much.

I am? Have you read my biography of Muhammad?

No I haven't read your Muhammad biography, and the only "qualification" I have is reading your online writings, including what you've said about Muhammad and Islam over the years, and some pieces from the FARMS Review (I remember, for example, off the subject, your noting that Huston Smith questioned evolution, and you've never really been explicit about your views on evolution, as Kerry recently has on MAD, where he's made it clear in no uncertain terms that evolution is a fact, and I find that very admirable, the way he has studied this). I do recall from the Review that you don't believe the Qur'an matches the Book of Mormon, but that's not startling. And it is inconceivable that you'd hold Muhammad on the same prophetic level as Joseph Smith. How could you not hold to the idea that there's myth in both Muhammad and the Qur'an? The Quranic and Book of Mormon accounts are different (not the least in that the Qur'an isn't a "historical account"). They can't both be true. If both the Qur'an and the Book of Mormon are inspired revelation from God, then God is somewhat confused. You were also asked on MAD whether you thought Muhammad was really a prophet, considering the title of your book, and I think we both agreed that it shouldn't necessarily be taken literally (the book title).

I take it that you hold the view of the Church leaders, past and present, that Muhammad "received a portion of God's word"? Defining what that portion is must be mind-boggling.
>
>
>

[_Pokatator]

It's reassuring to see that the two "Backslappin Bros" are still locked in an embrace.

And who might those two "Backslappin Bros" be? You and Mr. Plate?

We don't see you two here for quite a while and then all of sudden here you are posting and adding nothing but noise, again.

Was there some kind of emergency alert or all boards bulletin from the l-skinny club or the strengthening members committee telling youse two ta get on over here pronto and make some noise?

[_wenglund]

Not that it matters much, but shouldn't the list be retitled: "The Top Ten Tempests in the MDB Teapot 2008" or "The Top Ten Scratch Obsessions 2008", and this because many of the things listed didn't register a blip on the radar of most LDS apologists?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

It really doesn't matter what BYU pays you for "officially". You know that they expect you to defend the Church

I wasn't hired to defend the Church, and, if I quit doing apologetics, my salary would be entirely unaffected. By contrast, if I were to cease teaching and writing about Islam and editing Islamic texts, I would be fired.

It's that simple.

Why don't you quit doing apologetics, then? What's in it for you? What do you gain by doing it?

More to the point, why are you so concerned that people might think that you collect a "wad of bills" for doing apologetics? Do you worry that it would undermine your credibility in some way?